Betting syndicates are just one shadow cast over Cricket SA’s T20 Global League
It can be made the hard way or in a variety of easy ways, but however it is done, there is an awful lot of money to be made in cricket. Sadly for the players, only the very elite get to see much of it.
“Easy” does not necessarily mean “above board”. The most popular way to make obscene amounts of cash from cricket in recent decades has been to own a stake in a high-profile cricket team and bet on its results. Inside information and special instructions to certain team members have made some owners, part-owners and their associates exceptionally wealthy. That only a few teams and players have been caught in the Bangladesh Premier League is evidence, not of the lack of betting irregularities, but of how difficult it is to catch the perpetrators.
The romantic and naive among cricket lovers enjoyed the foundation of the Masters Premier League in the United Arab Emirates in 2016 for the opportunities it gave to retired cricketers and because it allowed viewers to indulge in (mostly disappointing) nostalgia.
Sure, there were many sound business reasons for starting the league. Apart from jobs on the ground and bodies in the beds of the hotel group that bankrolled it, the income from television advertising was forecast to grow exponentially following interest expressed from global broadcasters.
But forecasts on the movements and activity on the underground betting markets in Asia were less readily available. They were busy, though. And the league was potentially the most fertile sporting market in sporting history with six teams full, mostly, of players with nothing to lose, many of whom seriously needed the cash having just missed out on the post-IPL boom years.
At least six players including a former international captain, received unusual or inappropriate requests or instructions from their employers but did not report them because they preferred not to jeopardise future opportunities. That league is now defunct – but the gamblers and bookmakers who saw it as a treasure trove are not.
When Cricket Australia (CA) were setting up their Big Bash League they sent a four-man delegation to meet potential franchise owners in India, such was the strength of interest from suitors in that country.
Australia, like SA now, had decided to go the “independent” route for their eight teams. But they changed their mind, ostensibly because they realised at the last minute that the long-term value of their resource might be worth far more than anything team owners could pay them up front and they wanted 100% ownership of it. But the fact that due diligence work on the bids showed, beneath a myriad layers of disguise, the undoubtable involvement or backing of gambling syndicates may also have played a part in CA’s U-turn.
Cricket SA are a long way behind the pace set by the IPL, the Big Bash and the Caribbean Premier League and they need to catch up, which means they will sell their teams to independent buyers and probably retain barely nominal control.
Cricket SA will hope that the ICC’s and their own anticorruption units and investigators will be sufficient to suppress the sordid side of the betting business, but there will be much they cannot control, such as national player availability. When a team buys AB de Villiers and Kagiso Rabada in the first auction, you can be certain they will be playing every game and not resting on behalf of the Proteas’ imminent engagement against India at the end of December.
Teams and their owners will do all in their power to gain an edge and win. In Cape Town and Joburg, where there are almost certain to be two teams, the fight for supporters could get messy.
So many questions have yet to be answered: How will venue-sharing be organised, will there be a salary cap, how and who will monitor marketing campaigns to keep them “tasteful”, and can transformation numbers be imposed on an international rather than domestic tournament?
Australia’s Big Bash lost money for the first five years and has only just shown its first profit but, as was forecast, its commercial value is not immense. But there is also a predictability and “sameness” about it that may limit its appeal in years to come. Basically, there is one owner, CA, and they get to call all the off-field shots that matter. SA’s tournament may be raw and rough by comparison, more saloon and duel at dusk than cocktail bar and game of bridge. Which would suit us perfectly.